| 1:43 am on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
| 11:12 am on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
not that much.
| 3:42 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Is the whole sandbox/aging delay thing still in force? You don't hear much about it these days.
| 4:24 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Is the whole sandbox/aging delay thing still in force? |
The delays are not as much as the traditional sandbox however for a new site there is still definitely what I would call "a holding period" until G determines that it adds genuine value.
Well-established sites seem to have no problem in adding new pages and established sites I use for testing purposes for all manner of subjects are spidered very quickly and rank quite well after just a few weeks.
That's a very big plus if one purchases a clean established domain name for a new site.
| 4:33 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Sure. But there was never an issue to getting new pages for old domains indexed as far as I am aware.
The issue I was thinking of was, brand new domain would not return results in the SERPs for up to 12 months, regardless as to how many inbound links, relevent content etc., then appeared to suddenly be 'released' from a 'filter' of some sort and behave normally.
| 4:42 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|But there was never an issue to getting new pages for old domains indexed as far as I am aware. |
Just dropping in a piece of relevant advice for anyone who may not know it:-)
| 6:02 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Wow. What's all this superstitious guesswork here?
It's been almost three years now since Google and Yahoo implemented TrustRank.
sandbox: no such thing
aging delay: no such thing
domain age: no such thing
link age: improves TrustRank ( something that stays linked... is a resource. in and out? probably spam )
domain registration period: improves TrustRank ( spam don't last )
links from proper sources: improves TrustRank ( ...you better know about this already... )
...to name a few.
It's still all about links, links, links. But not just any link, quality, relevant links.
- Low trust will not let you on the SERPs, ever.
- High trust will let you on within one or two weeks.
- Even for competitive stuff.
End of story.
| 6:14 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Is 2007 different than 2004 in dealing with Google? |
Absolutely. Technology has changed. Spidering routines have changed. All sorts of stuff. New algos are in place and being tweaked regularly. Three years is a long time and much has changed. Google itself (as a company) have changed.
If it didn't change, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. ;)
Google's indices have grown exponentially over that 3 year time span. There are now multiple (and I do mean multiple!) datacenters that are constantly in flux while Google does its thing.
We no longer have the Google Dance. We have an ongoing continuous flux as data moves from one datacenter to the next and, from one indice to the next. We now have the Gorg. The Gorg is made up of trillions of Googlebots. We have been assimilated. How's that for conspiracy theory? :)
|Less than three weeks ago, I launched a new site. There's only 65 pages on it right now (many more pages to come), but Google has already indexed 15 of them. |
Are you using the Google Toolbar? Did you have a few quality inbounds to give it a jumpstart?
|And I can already find some of the pages using admittedly obscure search terms. |
I believe this is the normal routine for many sites. At first you get the long tail stuff. Over time, as the site develops from a variety of standpoints, you start to gain visibility for the mid tail. Eventually you work your way to the short tail and at that point, you can say "I did it!" The timeline to achieve that goal varies greatly for each site.
tedster has another way of explaining the terminology...
|1. the "head" is the #1 trophy word (only one winner here), |
2. the "long tail" is all those highly targeted long search phrases (high conversion, but low traffic)
3. the "fat belly" is a solid variety of 2 or 3 word phrases
Nobody talks about getting #1 now?
| 9:04 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|sandbox: no such thing |
aging delay: no such thing
domain age: no such thing
I'm not saying you are right or wrong. However how do we explain sites with brand new domains, yet quality inbound links - including ones that have simply 301 redirected from an old domain to a new one - dropping down the Google SERPs (and only Google regardless as to their Yahoo or MSN postion) for several months? This is certainly something that used happen to up to a year or so ago. Although, as I say, I don't hear much about it anyore. I haven't launched a new site for a while.
I've never heard of Trustrank to be honest.
| 9:11 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Here's a good thread about trust and trustrank -- and the so-called "sandbox' altogether. It's from our Hot Topics section that's always pinned to the top of the Google forum's index page.
Filters exist - the Sandbox doesn't. How to build Trust [webmasterworld.com]
| 10:05 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"Although, as I say, I don't hear much about it anyore."
The sandbox was an obvious thing previously. Almsot nobody pretends otherwise anymore. Things are different now, as google has tweaked different things a bit more sensibly now. people report new pages on established domains having a bit hard time to rank, while new sites don't have as terrible a lead weight on them. Still, the sandbox still plainly exists. new pages on old domains tend to have an edge over new pages on new domains when all linking is the same. And pages on new domains get outranked by far weaker pages on established domains. Still, the gap now is close rather than cavernous as it was three years ago.
(Indexing never had anything to do with the sandbox.)
| 10:13 pm on Jun 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Pageoneresults, I had a few quality inbound links when I launched. But only a few. I didn't want to have a whole slew of links at the outset, as it wouldn't seem natural.
I'm following Brett's rules: adding content, getting more links, etc.
What's interesting is the pages that Google is indexing. It's indexed the many of the pages that are one click away from the home page, but none of the pages that are two clicks away. So, it hasn't deep-crawled the site yet.
When I launched the 2004 site, I put up over 1,000 pages all at once. Over the next three months, Googlebots would stop by maybe 30 times a month.
With this new site, the Googlebots have visited twice that often in just three weeks.
Whatever reasons someone wants to ascribe to this change, I'm glad to see it. (Crossing fingers that it doesn't take full year to start ranking).
| 2:53 am on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
< moved from another location >
I registered a domain 4 days ago, and started up a brand new message board. I've just been spending the last few days trying to build up the membership, up to about 55 members so far and 180 posts. Already I'm seeing traffic from Google, with most results on the first page. Now, I have no other sites linking to mine, and I have not submitted it to any search engines. This seems to go against everything I ever thought I knew about google. On the other hand I have a site that is about 4 years old, and for the last 2 years it has been ranking really well, and now on a few of the most relevant search terms it has inexplicably dropped from the results. Unfortunately that one is my business site, which will now cause me to dramatically increase my advertising budget. I guess that's good for Google.
[edited by: tedster at 3:23 am (utc) on June 11, 2007]
| 3:29 am on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
One thing that was part of the old "sandbox phenomenon" was that a new domain could rank really well for a few days, and then vanish for months. Today, there is still often a "honeymoon" period of strong rankings followed by a dip -- but the dip is usually much less severe and for not nearly so long.
However, to stay in the index you will want to get some links pointing to your new domain. Forget submitting, just get those links.
| 5:22 am on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Here's a good thread about trust and trustrank -- and the so-called "sandbox' altogether. It's from our Hot Topics section that's always pinned to the top of the Google forum's index page. |
In retrospect, yes I have read it and I have heard of Trustrank. I think I tend to blank out these terms as they fall in and out of usage. ;)
From that point of view the current Google situation is somewhat preferable to what it was in 2004. At least for new site owners. But these things always seem to be a kind of seesaw or balance of an algorithm, rather than any major rewrite. The balance now appears to be more page based than site based.
| 10:31 am on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Wow. What's all this superstitious guesswork here? |
I never use guesswork, I use the factual experience of the past 14 years or so, way before Google was even conceptualised!
| 2:37 pm on Jun 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
What that has to do with ranking in Google today or tomorrow I really don't get so, good luck.
Nothing I knew from 2003 on how to rank well applied in 2004. Nothing.
|for a new site there is still definitely what I would call "a holding period" until G determines that it adds genuine value. |
If this was in Google lingo and what you really meant was...
|for a new site there is still definitely what I would call "a holding period" until G determines that it has links of genuine value. |
...I'll give you credit, for you know what you're talking about.
Not saying that you shouldn't get ready for the phrase-matching, semantics driven, context checking doubleplusgood SuperGoogle of the 22nd century, but last time I checked today these parameters were but filtering SPAM, and if not, they were overruled by 5-15 quality links to overaged cr@p ( informative ), and bought links by, to and from major players / authorities ( commercial ).